I would argue that Wikipedia while not a great primary source has pretty stringent guidelines for providing sources in its articles. So you’ve answered with a thought terminating cliche and refused to elaborate. In other words you’re incorrect and too fragile to admit it.
That’s not what a thought terminating cliche is. And no, the fact I didn’t bother to get bogged down in whatever tedious secondary argument you want to have does not remotely mean my initial point is wrong.
You should really counter point with your own source if you’re going to tell someone their source is insufficient
No. That’s not remotely how that works.
I would argue that Wikipedia while not a great primary source has pretty stringent guidelines for providing sources in its articles. So you’ve answered with a thought terminating cliche and refused to elaborate. In other words you’re incorrect and too fragile to admit it.
Imagine if every idiot could just say “You didn’t debate me that means reality is what I claim!” and have it be true
That’s not what a thought terminating cliche is. And no, the fact I didn’t bother to get bogged down in whatever tedious secondary argument you want to have does not remotely mean my initial point is wrong.
This dead horse was already beaten half a day ago in this thread.